Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
An update...
JohnD
Ranger
in Zocalo v2.0
For anyone who may have wondered why I haven't been posting here, some things have kept me busy for the past 3-4 months, including interviews, prep and 2 months at a new job as an engineer, some of which towards the tail end of one project I've been working on has resulted in this:
[url]http://www.pcnet.com/~jdutka/USSVirginia1.jpg[/url]
Yes, I'm in the picture, but I won't say where. 6 days a week, 8.5 hours a day plus 2.5 hours of commutes per day...tends to leave one without much free time.
[url]http://www.pcnet.com/~jdutka/USSVirginia1.jpg[/url]
Yes, I'm in the picture, but I won't say where. 6 days a week, 8.5 hours a day plus 2.5 hours of commutes per day...tends to leave one without much free time.
Comments
Congrats with the new job.
[B]Looks nice!
Congrats with the new job. [/B][/QUOTE]
Thanks - it's been fun, especially standing within an arm's length of that sub, then walking over to the same distance from a Seawolf :)
[B]What special tasks you have as an engineer there? ... engineer is a very general term. [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, it is. By intention :)
Dealing with issues that pop up with parts/products/systems with which my group is involved, budget work, specification design work, liason work. The whole ball of wax.
That's about as specific as the answer can get.
[B]Looks like a sweeeet sub. [/B][/QUOTE]
Ayup. There's something to be said for walking within arm's reach of that sub while it was being built, then walking across the floor to do the same with a Seawolf.
I'm hoping to receive an assignment that requires me to go onboard the Virginia before it is delivered, too.
[B]That's a Seawolf class isn't it? [/B][/QUOTE]
The USS Virginia, SSN-774, is 1st of the Virginia Class.
The Seawolf ended up being too expensive and a Cold War-oriented design. Granted, it would be an amazing boat at whatever it did, but it is a pricy S.O.B.
[B]The Seawolf ended up being too expensive and a Cold War-oriented design. Granted, it would be an amazing boat at whatever it did, but it is a pricy S.O.B.[/B][/QUOTE]
I was under the impression that they'd laid keel for 2 of the seawolfs before cancelling further orders.... I'm assuming that the 2 will be commisioned then?
When do they have planned for all the 688's to be phased out by the virginia's? There a quite a few 688's in service.
[B]I was under the impression that they'd laid keel for 2 of the seawolfs before cancelling further orders.... I'm assuming that the 2 will be commisioned then?[/b][/quote]
SSN-21 through 23 were commissioned; the Seawolf, Connecticut and Jimmy Carter. The rest were cancelled.
[quote][b]When do they have planned for all the 688's to be phased out by the virginia's? There a quite a few 688's in service. [/B][/QUOTE]
[quote][i]Between 1998 and 2001 the US will retire 11 Los Angeles class submarines that have an average of 13 years left on their 30-year service lives. SSN-688 class submarines could operate for much longer than 30 years; one of the shipbuilders stated that 10 to 20 years of additional service would not be unreasonable. Past Navy actions indicate that extending a submarine's service life may be feasible. After a 5-year study was completed on the SSN-637 class submarine--the predecessor of the SSN-688 class--the design life was extended from 20 years to 30 years, with a possible extension to 33 years on a case-by-case basis. The 18 SSN-688 class submarines that will be refueled at their mid-life could make good candidates for a service life extension because they could operate for nearly 30 years after the refueling. After these submarines serve for 30 years, they could undergo a 2-year overhaul and serve for one more 10-year operating cycle, for a total service life of 42 years. The cost for the additional overhaul of SSN-688 class submarines would be about $406 million per boat.
Eight older Los Angeles-class submarines, without a vertical launch system, could be refueled at a cost of $210 million more than it would cost to inactivate them.
* FY2000 - SSN 713 Houston
* FY2001 - SSN 698 Bremerton
* FY2001 - SSN 699 Jacksonville
* FY2001 - SSN 714 Norfolk
* FY2005 - SSN 716 Salt Lake City
* FY2006 - SSN 717 Olympia
* FY2007 - SSN 718 Honolulu
* FY2008 - SSN 710 Augusta
These submarines can still be used in strike missions, however, by firing Tomahawk land attack missiles through their torpedo tubes.
The existing DOD guidance calls for a force of 50 attack submarines, although some studies have called for raising the number of subs to as many as 72. Existing plans are sufficient to meet the goal of 50 boats, although higher numbers would require modification to these plans. According to Navy secretary Richard Danzig, as of October 1999 the Joint Chiefs of Staff were studying options for increasing the size and capability of the submarine force. The three options under review include by converting older Ohio-class SSBN submarines to so-called SSGNs at a cost of $420 million; refueling and extending by 12 years the service life of perhaps eight Los Angeles-class (SSN 688) subs at a cost per copy of $200 million; or building new Virginia-class (SSN 774) subs at a rate of at least four over the next five years, at a cost of roughly $2 billion per boat. The FY2000 Defense Authorization bill requires the Navy to study converting four of the oldest Tridents to the new SSGN configuration.[/i][/quote]
[B]Virginia class is more of an anti sub design isn't it? i thought i read that in popular science a while back (2 years). they stick close to the continental shelf right? or perhaps that was misreporting? [/B][/QUOTE]
That was pretty much misreporting, yes.
[B]I was under the impression that they'd laid keel for 2 of the seawolfs before cancelling further orders.... I'm assuming that the 2 will be commisioned then?
When do they have planned for all the 688's to be phased out by the virginia's? There a quite a few 688's in service. [/B][/QUOTE]
3 Seawolf subs were authorized. The SSN-23 USS Jimmy Carter (no kidding - that really is the name) is nearing completion.
I have no idea what they have planned for the Los Angeles Class subs to be phased out, but I suspect they will be disposed of and, if things work as they hopefully will, replaced by new-build Virginia Class subs.
[B]SSN-21 through 23 were commissioned; the Seawolf, Connecticut and Jimmy Carter. The rest were cancelled. [/B][/QUOTE]
The Jimmy Carter hasn't been commissioned yet. I know that, since I saw it up on blocks in the construction yard earlier today. That was from a distance, but I last saw it up close a few weeks ago. By "up close," I mean within 50 feet.
[QUOTE][B]The three options under review include by converting older Ohio-class SSBN submarines to so-called SSGNs at a cost of $420 million; refueling and extending by 12 years the service life of perhaps eight Los Angeles-class (SSN 688) subs at a cost per copy of $200 million;[/B][/QUOTE]
Old news. The SSGN is a reality and being designed. I've seen some internal presentations on the process and even interviewed with the team that's now working on the project. Info is available here:
[url]http://www.gdeb.com/news/news.html#09-16-03[/url]
[QUOTE][B]or building new Virginia-class (SSN 774) subs at a rate of at least four over the next five years, at a cost of roughly $2 billion per boat.[/B][/QUOTE]
That's old news, too...all of the info presented in the quote immediately above has changed:
[url]http://www.gdeb.com/news/news.html#08-14-03[/url]
The plan is to move from 1 per year to 2 per year as of FY07. BTW, news at the bottom of that page is "In 1998, the U.S. Navy awarded a $4.2 billion contract for the construction of the first four ships of the class." Divide $4.2 billion by 4 and you get the 1998-dollars price of each Virginia Class SSN. Considering inflaction being not that high, the price hasn't gone up too much.
[B]3 Seawolf subs were authorized. The SSN-23 USS Jimmy Carter (no kidding - that really is the name) is nearing completion.[/B][/QUOTE]
OOoops... forgot about the Carter!
Kinda mixed feelings about the name of that one. Personally I don't think a ship should be named for someone until after they've passed on, but they've done it for a couple so far.... that's just my take on it!
not my ideal job, I can tell ya that. Toooo cramped, unless that is more roomy then the Nautalus that is up in SC....only "modern" sub the public can go on...
anyhoo, have fun touring the world, litterally "down under" :)
[B]Dealing with issues that pop up with parts/products/systems with which my group is involved, budget work, specification design work, liason work. The whole ball of wax.[/B][/QUOTE]
So, you're the head ("your group") and you have material science engineers, aircraft engineers, etc under your command?
[B]Thanks for the links, John, interesting reads. I'm not surprised at all the info I have is outdated, all I have to go on is what I can read ;) I read the Jimmy Carter was commissioned in Dec 2001, but I guess that's when it was [b]supposed[/b] to be commissioned :p [/B][/QUOTE]
Changes were made in the design (not by EB) in the middle of construction, so it's actually on schedule.
[B]So, you're the head ("your group") and you have material science engineers, aircraft engineers, etc under your command? [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm a lowly engineer on a team that is part of a group that is part of a department which is part of an overall engineering section.
You're either an engineer, engineer specialist, senior engineer or team lead, supervisor, manager or director. At the director level, you're an exec - VP level, I think. Those positions are from lowest to highest.
[B]Just out of curiosity, JohnD, how do you feel about helping to build weapons? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but there are cases of scientists and engineers designing pretty damn nasty weapons simply to test their own theories, or for profit, and other cases of scientists and engineers refusing to work on projects that could be used for or to develope weapons. What's your opinion on this whole area of morals and related stuff? [/B][/QUOTE]
I have no problem whatsoever, helping design parts of platforms that help defend the country. There's no moral quandry for me.
[B]hmm...
not my ideal job, I can tell ya that. Toooo cramped, unless that is more roomy then the Nautalus that is up in SC....only "modern" sub the public can go on...[/B][/QUOTE]
BTW, I was finally able to go onboard the boat to take a look at the status of some things. Woo hoo!